Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Marsie Skeete.

Councillor Dennis Pearce attended as a substitute.

There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.

Councillor David Dean declared that as his family had been involved with Wimbledon Rugby Club he would not speak or vote on this item.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2019 were agreed as an accurate record.

The Chair will announce the order of Items at the beginning of the Meeting.

A Supplementary Agenda with any modifications will be published on the day of the meeting.

Note: there is no written report for this item

Supplementary Agenda: Amendments and modifications to the Officer’s report were published in a Supplementary Agenda. This applied to items 5, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

Order of the meeting – The Chair announced that the items would be taken in the following order 5, 9, 11, 13, 7, 8,10,12, 14 and 15.

Note: Item 6 was withdrawn from the Agenda prior to the meeting

Application Number: 18/0183                    Ward: Village

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

GRANTED Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Installation of artificial grass on existing rugby pitch with associated hard and soft landscaping, fencing and floodlighting.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from 3 objectors (who shared the maximum time of 6 minutes) and the Applicant and Agent.

The Objectors raised points including:

·         Will affect and have huge impact on the openness of the MOL (Metropolitan Open Land)

·         Will reduce access across the space

·         A much less intrusive application for Cricket Nets was refused in 2016

·         There is no travel plan, despite requests. The site Ptal rating is 0

·         Private streets cannot be considered as available for parking. These streets have no pavements

·         The site does not have the capacity for 178 cars parking on the grass in the MOL.

·         Application will cause loss of grass and is detrimental to the MOL

·         Residents see no difference between this application and the refused previous application

·         Procedural flaw in process as the Transport Survey was late. There are other pieces of information missing.

·         The proposed floodlighting does not fall into a defined exception and must be deemed inappropriate. There are recent appeal decisions where floodlights have been considered inappropriate in the Greenbelt

The Applicant and Agent made points including:

·         This application is part of the ‘Rugby 365’ program to create high quality accessible Rugby venues

·         LBM supports the playing field strategy

·         There is no detrimental impact on the character of the area.

·         This is an upgrade of existing facilities, the existing floodlighting is to be replaced by new that creates less light spillage. The fencing is to be upgraded to blend in.

·         Other such pitches in MOL land have been allowed

·         The club provides many opportunities for local adult and children’s sport.

·         This application will improve community engagement and allow for increased participation

·         It has been demonstrated that it will not cause any detrimental impact on local parking

·         Floodlight training already takes place

·         No use after 10pm, supported by LBM Environmental Health

·         Large number of supporting representations sent in

In reply to Members’ questions, Officers replied:

·         The application for Cricket Nets was refused because they were proposed in a different area, an area that currently does not have any facilities on it. This application is proposing to replace an existing rugby pitch with another, and therefore Officers can support.

·         We asked the applicant for their busiest peak  times and carried out transport survey at those times. Not aware of Residents being asked about these times. After 8pm the traffic disappears

·         The Parking Survey was done by Highways Engineers and was a technical request, this was not re-consulted on. There was a delay getting this onto the web-site as Highways Officers were reviewing the document.

·         Cars can park on the grass

·         This main benefit of this scheme for the Club is year round usage of the pitch.

Members made comments including:

·         The Transport Survey does appear to be skewed towards the Rugby Club, another survey should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application Number:17/P0296                  Ward: Abbey

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to S106 agreements and conditions

WITHDRAWN FROM THIS AGENDA

WITHDRAWN FROM THIS AGENDA

Withdrawn from this agenda prior to the meeting

Application Number: 18/P4236                  Ward: Village

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

GRANTED Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Application for temporary permission to erect 5 x air domes over existing clay courts between September and May for a period of 3 years

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 19/P0418                  Ward: Lower Morden

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

GRANTED Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Erection of an end of terrace dwelling with basement level incorporating new vehicular crossover to Wydell Close and off-street parking.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation

Members made comments including:

·         The Committees previous refusal was for one specific reason and the applicant has tackled this issue with this application

·         We cannot turn this down just because we would not want to live in it

·         The amenity space, 17.5m² , is now acceptable

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 18/P4447                  Ward: Dundonald

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement

GRANTED Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and structures, and redevelopment for a new 8 - storey building (plus additional plant at roof level) comprising of a hotel (use class C1) and three commercial units (a flexible use within classes A1, A2, A3 and / or A4); substation; alterations to existing access and creation of new access on Graham Road; hard and soft landscaping, ground works and associated infrastructure.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from two objectors, the applicant’s agent and a Ward Councillor

The Objectors raised points including:

·         Concerned about the Safety of pedestrians using Graham Road

·         Graham Road is used by many children and families walking to School. This application proposes that Graham Road is an exit road for service vehicles 7am -11pm every day. What safety analysis has been carried out on this?

·         It is assumed that all vehicles will turn left onto Graham Road but this is to be encouraged and not enforced.

·         If this application is allowed the servicing plan should be reduced and the left hand turn should be enforced.

·         This application is repeats the design planning mistakes of the past; its height, massing and scale all being too big. It will dominate its surroundings and is against new Planning Policy

·         Is this the right place for such a big hotel?

·         There are no CGI plans to show what impact it will have on the 2 storey houses in Graham Road

·         The Police have advised that reception should be at Ground Level, not on the first floor as the design indicates

The Applicant made points including:

·         This is a high quality design and a £50million investment that will create 150 jobs.

·         We have listened and evolved the scheme. Officers say the height is acceptable and is less than Pinnacle House next door. The DRP gave it a green light. The Application is submitted to fit the requirement of the emerging local plan

·         There was concern regarding Service Vehicles using Beulah Road, and we have changed this so that vehicles will turn left onto Graham Road and then left onto Hartfield Road.

·         The building will be have a BREEAM ‘very good’ rating and will have environmentally friendly features including photovoltaic panels and green roofs

The Ward Councillor, Councillor Anthony Fairclough made points including:

·         This application will have an impact on pedestrian safety, it is not an easy site for servicing. There is a plan for vehicles to turn left onto Graham Road but it is not enforceable.

·         This is a main walking route for children and families

·         Local Businesses are concerned about the impact of the application

·         The NPPF and Merton policies could  relate  to pedestrian safety in this case

·         Condition 32 limits the hours of service vehicles.

The Planning Team Leader North made points in answer to the Objectors concerns:

·         Design is subjective and this application has been given a green light by the Design Review Panel (DRP)

·         The Design staggers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Application Number: 18/P4357                  Ward: Cannon Hill

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

GRANTED Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Erection of a two storey end of terrace dwellinghouse with associated off street car parking.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda

In reply to a Member’s question the Planning Team Leader South explained that if the appeal on the previous application for this site is allowed and the application currently being considered allowed, then the applicant will have two permissions and will be able to choose which scheme to build.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 18/P3354                  Ward: Wimbledon Park

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Variation of Conditions, subject to conditions and deed of variation to the S106 agreement

GRANTED Variation of Conditions, subject to conditions and deed of variation to the S106 agreement

Proposal: Application under Section 73 to vary conditions 3 (approved plans) and 20 (opening hours) and omit conditions 22, 23, 44 and 46 (all relating to café and crèche) attached to LBM planning permission 14/P4361 (football stadium, commercial and residential development).

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from two objectors, the applicant’s agent and a Ward Councillor

The Objectors made points including:

·         Concerned about the scraping of the crèche as it was the only community provision in this application

·         Unclear who decided that this childcare was unnecessary in this area

·         In fact there are a growing number of young children in Wimbledon Park and there is a demand for childcare. This is shown in Merton Council’s own Childcare Sufficiency Report

·         Why isn’t the Council asking the Developer to provide childcare within this huge development

·         Air pollution kills 33 people in London every day.

·         Merton’s Planning Guidelines say that applications must be refused if they will make air pollution worse.

·         NO₂  Levels in this area have not been properly considered and a survey should be carried out by an Environmental Statistical expert should be carried out.

·         A decision on this application should be delayed until these levels have been quantified

The Applicant made points including:

·         We did discuss the crèche with childcare providers but they thought that a crèche would not be commercially sustainable as there were problems with the site that could not be overcome.

·         There are other community uses on the site; the Squash and Fitness Club

·         The application is supported by a full statement of Air Quality that was undertaken by specialists who concluded that there were no issues. As part of this we have reduced the residential and stadium car park.

·         We are now providing 28 additional affordable homes in the development

The Ward Councillor Ed Gretton made points including:

·         The Childcare Sufficiency Study does say that there is a need for childcare in the Wimbledon Park area

·         There are serious issues with air quality in the area. It would be appropriate to adjourn the decision on this application until further investigation has been done

·         Would like to re-instate the previous design of a softer radial curve.

In reply to Member’s questions, Officers replied that the original application proposed 60 affordable units, this has now been increased by a further 20. In addition there 100 shared ownership units proposed but these are not part of the S106 agreement; if these are delivered they will count towards the affordable housing target of the borough, but the Council will not have nomination rights on the units

A member commented that he was disappointed that the Council hadn’t pursued the applicant regarding the loss of the crèche, and that he proposed a recommendation that the applicant be pursued for a clawback of money towards childcare. This was proposed and seconded. Officers advised against such a recommendation as there was no legal requirement to provide a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Application Number: 18/P3386                  Ward: Pollards Hill

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

GRANTED Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal; Erection of a two storey (with basement level) end-of-terrace property comprising 2 x self-contained flats.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda

A Member commented that it was a pity that this application was not providing one family sized home, rather than two smaller units.  The South Area Team leader confirmed that advice had been provided at the pre-application stage for one dwelling on the site.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 18/P3780                  Ward: Abbey

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and deed of variation to the S106 agreement

GRANTED Planning Permission subject to conditions and deed of variation to the S106 agreement.

Proposal: Application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) attached to LBM planning permission 15/P4741 (34 x residential units and 459 sqm of office space). The changes relate to reconfiguring the layout of Block A to create 11 new units (taking total to 45), alterations to fenestration/terrace and additional cycle parking spaces across the development.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation. The Committee received verbal presentations from an objector, and the applicant’s agent.

The Objector made points including:

·         Previously allowed plan is already too dense, this application includes 45 more units, an increase of 30%. This a substantial increase.

·         The change of the roof terraces to units will result in further substantial overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties

·         More affordable Housing should be provided

·         The application increases the flood and subsidence risks for neighbours and residents of the new properties

·         Vital measurements are still missing

·         There is no practical design reason given for these changes, it is purely about increasing the developers profit

The Agent to the Application made points including:

·         This application is in accord with the London Plan

·         Our transport survey suggests that there is parking capacity in the area and this has been signed off by the Council. Future residents will not get parking permits

·         The application does not increase the massing of Block A, therefore there is no further effect on sunlight or daylight to neighbours. There is no additional impact on overlooking.

·         This application proposes 4 affordable units on-site, the previous permission did not provide any affordable units on –site, it provided a payment for affordable housing elsewhere in the Borough

·         This application is for high quality accommodation with over 40% being family sized units

·         The cycling storage is in accordance with the London Plan

In reply to Members’ questions, Officers gave answers including:

·         Original application did not provide any on-site affordable, it provided £200,000 towards off-site affordable housing

·         The Viability assessment for this application has been reviewed by an external assessor, and found that 4 on-site affordable units is viable

·         Although our target for affordable housing is 40% it is Government Policy that we cannot refuse an application if the viability assessment says that it cannot support this level of affordable housing

·         There is a clawback mechanism on the application

·         Officers do not know what would happen regarding the payments to Crossrail, if Crossrail were to be abandoned. This is a matter for the Mayor of London to answer

Members made comments including:

·         In the past we have been told that small allocations of affordable units are not very attractive for Housing Associations to manage.

·         The Developers must be confident that they can secure social housing partner to provide the affordable units

·         Pleased to see 3 and 4 bedroomed property included in the affordable units

Members noted the Planning Team Leader South’s comments that Officers could explore the potential for using funds collected for off-site affordable housing to deliver extra affordable units on this site (London Plan policy 3.15 (g)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

RESOLVED

The Committee noted the report on Planning Appeal Decisions

RESOLVED

The Committee noted the Enforcement Officer’s report.